Perumal Chokkalingam
Introduction
Perumal Chokkalingam is a physiotherapist who was struck off the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) register in September 2024 after a panel found he failed to obtain informed consent, ignored a service user’s repeated requests to stop treating her, and later made two dishonest statements about what had happened. The incident took place on 10 May 2022 in a single consultation with Service User A, who the panel found suffered significant pain and distress because he continued with painful treatment while inferring she was being “over-sensitive”. The panel found current impairment on the personal and public components, cited his lack of remorse and limited remediation, and imposed the most severe sanction available.
Background Information
Chokkalingam was a registered physiotherapist practising in the United Kingdom when the May 2022 consultation took place. The HCPC’s case rested on the account of Service User A and colleague witnesses: the allegation was that he did not introduce himself at the beginning of the consultation, did not explain his reasoning for the proposed treatment, did not obtain verbal or written consent before commencing treatment, did not answer the service user’s question about her X-ray results, and did not cease treatment despite multiple requests from her to stop. The hearing was conducted remotely in September 2024 after proper service of notice; the registrant emailed the HCPC that he had not appointed a representative and was not sure he would be able to attend, and the panel proceeded in his absence with four witnesses available to give evidence.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Struck off for continuing painful treatment after repeated requests to stop, then lying about it. The consent record was found inaccurate but not dishonest; two later statements to colleagues were found dishonest.
The panel found proved every limb of the communication allegation: no introduction, no explanation of the treatment, no consent obtained, the X-ray question left unanswered, and treatment continued despite Service User A repeatedly asking him to stop. It found he documented in her records that he had obtained informed consent when that was not the case — an entry the panel found inaccurate but, on balance, not dishonest. The dishonesty findings attached to what came afterwards: on or around 10 May 2022 he told Colleague A that Service User A had not asked him to stop treatment when that was not the case, and incorrectly told Person A that he had stopped treatment after the service user responded “yes” to his question of whether she wanted him to stop. The panel found both statements dishonest, part of an effort to conceal his wrongdoing, and aggravated by the significant pain and distress his persistence had caused. In mitigation the panel accepted the misconduct was an isolated incident arising from the treatment of a single service user on one occasion, and that he had no previous regulatory findings; against that, there was no expression of remorse, regret or apology, no meaningful demonstration of remediation, and limited insight.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The case appears on MedicWatch’s independent record of HCPC determinations and on the official HCPTS hearings site, with Chokkalingam listed among struck-off practitioners on MedicWatch’s erasures list. The panel found his fitness to practise impaired on both the personal and public components — misconduct at a level falling far short of the standards expected, with a risk of repetition given the limited insight — and concluded a striking-off order was the necessary and proportionate response. The determination records that witnesses attended and gave evidence in the registrant’s absence.
Current Status
Chokkalingam was struck off the HCPC register by the decision dated 17 September 2024, removing his ability to practise as a physiotherapist in the UK. The dishonesty findings relate to his statements after the consultation — the panel expressly declined to find the consent record itself dishonest — and the panel’s impairment finding rests on the failed communication and consent, the harm caused to Service User A, and his responses afterwards. No public statement from him and no appeal outcome appears in the fetched record.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The striking-off order ends Chokkalingam’s ability to work as a registered physiotherapist in the United Kingdom, and the findings — consent not obtained, treatment continued against a patient’s repeated wishes, records inaccurate, and two dishonest accounts to colleagues — form the permanent public record any future restoration application would confront. The panel’s characterisation of his explanation, that he inferred the service user was being “over-sensitive”, stands in the determination as its own measure of the insight gap the panel identified.